Notification
under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the 'Act') was
published on June 19,
1982 acquiring lands
in Survey No.27/C.1/A/1 admeasuring 1 hectare, 19 acres and 8 tees for
construction of houses for weaker section 5-A was issued. The enquiry was
conduced and no satisfaction that it was needed for public purpose, declaration
under Section 6 was published on January 17, 1983. After the Land Acquisition Officer issued notice under
Section 9 and 10 of the Act, the respondent No.3 filed writ petition in the
High Court questioning the validity of the notification and the declaration.
The contention raised and accepted by the High Court was that since Section 3-A
the Bombay (Amendment) Act, 1945 (22 of 1945) empowers the officer authorised
by the Commissioner to satisfy himself whether the land is needed for a public
purpose and since the authorised officer had not satisfied in that behalf, the Government`s
power, after the enquiry under Section 5-A, was denuded. The Government, therefor,
was not right in its conclusion that the land was needed for a public purpose.
We find that the view taken by the High Court is not correct in law.

On
publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, sub-section (2)
envisages that the Land Acquisition Officer or an officer authorised specially
in this behalf by the Government or any servant or workman shall have lawful
authority to enter upon and survey and conduct levels of any land in such
locality etc. Section 3-A envisages the power of the officers to carry out
survey as under:

"3-A.
Preliminary survey of lands and powers of officers to carry out survey. For the
purpose of enabling the State Government or the Commissioner to determine
whether the land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any
public purpose, it shall be lawful for any officers of the State Government in
the Public Works Department, or any other officer either generally or specially
authorised by the State Government in this behalf, of as the case may be, any
officer authorised by the Commissioner and for his servants and workmen,

(i) to
under upon and survey and take levels of any land in such locality;

(ii) to
make such levels;

(iii) to
do all other acts necessary to ascertain whether the land is adapted for such
purpose; and

(iv) where
otherwise the survey cannot be completed and the levels taken, to cut down and
clear away any part of any standing crop, fence or jungle;

Provided
that no person shall enter into any building or upon any enclosed court or
garden attached to a dwelling house (unless with the consent of the occupier
thereof), without previously giving such occupier at least seven days` notice
in writing of his intention to do so." This is synonymous to the power
under Section 4(2) of the Act. In addition to the officer authorised under
Section 7 of the Act, any other officer named in Section 3-A is also empowered
even before the notification under Section 4(1) is published to inspect the
locality and find out whether the land is needed or is likely to be needed for
any purpose and on such authorisation it shall be lawful for the officer
appointed by the State Government in the Public Works Department or any other
officer generally or specially authorised in this behalf, as the case may be,
or any officer authorised by the Government or a Public servant or a workman,
to enter upon and survey the land, take levels of any land in such locality,
mark levels and to do all other acts necessary to ascertain whether the land is
adapted for such purpose and, where otherwise the survey cannot be completed
and levels taken to cut down and clear away any part of any standing crop,
fence or jungle etc.

Section
3-B gives power for awarding damages for doing such acts. This will be only an
enabling provision to authorise the officer to do the acts envisaged under
Section 3-A of the State Amendment Act in addition to the power under
sub-section (2) of Section 4. Ultimately, it is for the State Government to
decide whether the land is needed or is likely to be needed for a public
purpose and whether it is suitable or adaptable for the purpose for which the
acquisition was sought to be made. The mere fact that the authorised officer
was empowered to inspect and find out whether the land would be adaptable for
the public purpose, it is needed or is likely to be needed, does not take away
the power of the Government to take a decision ultimately.

Section
6 of the Act gives a conclusiveness to the public purpose found by the
Government on publication of the declaration in the Gazette. In other words, it
is the State Government that is required to decide the land is needed or is
likely to be needed for the public purpose. The view of the High Court,
therefore, is clearly incorrect.

The
appeals are accordingly allowed. The order of the High Court in writ Petition
No.1417/84 dated February
25, 1987 stands set
aside. No costs.